Will always get negative points from me for being such a shitty site to navigate, and they seem to give out 5- and 4-stars like candy. I'm happy they favor Michigan's class so much, but I think rivals' rankings are a bit more conclusive and concrete.

I think site navigation depends on what you are used to. I find Scout easier because I've been there more than Rivals.

Regarding giving out "5- and 4-stars like candy", Scout gives the top 50 high school players 5 stars and the next 250 4 stars. So the top 300 high school players* on Scout are either 4 or 5 stars.

Rivals doesn't have a set number of 4 or 5 star players. They base their ratings on a system that measures players against a certain standard that determines star rating.

You could make a case for each approach. In a down year for talent, the top 50 players on Scout will still be 5 stars because they are compared against each other, while Rivals may only have 15 players that meet the overall standard for 5 stars on their scale. We as fans tend to compare the ratings for each site against each other saying this player is a "4 star on Scout and only a 3 on Rivals." What we really need to look at is where does each site rank them in the class. Both sites may have the player rated in the top 10 at his position. Doesn't that mean more to us anyway?

It's sad how excited Michigan fans are to have 3 players in the top 100. I never thought I would see the day where MSU could get a better recruit than Michigan. This is proof that Rich Rod is and will continue to be a failure, he can't recruit that well, and isn't a very good coach.

Dont get carried away. Michigan State doesn't have the same prestige as Michigan but stop pretending like they're completely incapable of getting recruits. If you think they can't pull the occasional top recruit then you haven't been following for very long.

Look, we just landed a top 10 class after going 8-14 over the last two seasons. We have the second best recruiting class in the conference, next to Penn State. There are plenty of things to complain about...but recruiting is not one of them.

...also, were you not around when michigan state got arguably the top player in the NATION, twice!? (TJ Duckett and Charles Rogers).

Let's start small. Unless you're Florida, USC, Texas or Bama, expecting to land more than 3 or 4 guys in the top 100 is a tall order. Furthermore, Michigan has been treading water with top recruits for years prior to RichRod, so I wouldn't be too upset about our lack of starpower at the top of our recruiting class. Want to hear some "top 100" names that I'm sure made you wet your pants when they committed?

2004: Doug Dutch, Brett Gallimore, Tim Jamison(well, a failure based on his top 50 status. Failure to develop these top guys is something you will notice late in the Carr years), Max Martin, Mike Massey, Doughboy Mitchell

2007 was a disturbing mass of suck that basically featured Mallett, Warren and Molk and little else.

Meanwhile, in RichRod's half-2008 class, we nabbed a soon-to-be-starter from UF(Ricky Barnum), two outstanding receivers you probably said 'meh' about(Odoms, Roundtree), perhaps our best lineman going into next year sans Molk(meh 2-star Omameh), and perhaps your starter at RB in Michael Shaw. Sans Shaw and maybe Barnum, you knew nothing about any of those kids.

In Richrod's first full class last year, we are already seeing some tremendous returns - and absolutely 0 attrition minus Witty. A lot of the kids played and look like soon-to-be-starters, and some of the very best(Turner, Gallon, Bell, Lalota, Washington, Toussaint, Schoefeld) havent even suited up yet.

In short, you're a fucking idiot, and may God have mercy on your soul. I pity you and your kin.

IIRC, both were 4 stars coming out. Not that I disagree that said poster is a moron, or that RichRod has done a good job recruiting. I think the mystery around a lot of the recruits you mentioned was the nature of their commitments, as roundtree, Shaw, and Barnum were all surprising commits near NSD, and Odoms committed after NSD.

Could it be that the sites ranked Roundtree higher because he was taller and as such had a better chance at the NFL? I know they involve NFL potential in their rankings and there are certainly more 6'0"+ receivers than 5'9" receivers (although their population growing).

How did those West Virginia classes rank, as RR was building those teams, huh? Go look at the NFL draft and the stars players were coming out of college, and I am sure you'll be shocked to see how many 2* and 3* players that get drafted so high. Yea, so lets see how these players play out on the field first, cause their star rankings are simply projections from high school.

While this is a snapshot of one year, it seems that Rivals rankings for the outgoing true seniors are more accurate. The omissions by Scout of projected first round NFL selections Spikes, Spiller, Graham and Reshod Jones leads me to believe that Rivals, at least in 2006, was way more accurate.

I have been watching that gap for a while. Normally when they are that far apart it is temporary and narrows fairly quickly. I assume the difference is Scout giving more weight to the quantity while Rivals favors the average rating per recruit. I don't know the specific methodology.

Whatever inconsistencies exist between Scout and Rivals, I'm very pleased Michigan is apparently reeling in a very strong class in the shadows of 3-9, 5-7. Assuming they all sign, we have a LOT to be happy about. Things could've been much, much worse.